Moving on to a more qualitatively oriented analysis, I will explore the semantic references of interactant pronouns we and you in this section. References of personal pronouns are often discussed alongside the discourse functions in which they appear (see, for example, Fortanet, 2004; Kuo, 1999). But in this section, I have attempted to focus mainly on the semantic references of interactant pronouns rather than linking them with the discourse functions that they perform. It should be noted, however, that these two variables are so closely interwoven that sometimes it becomes very frustrating to separate the two. Therefore, although semantic references are sporadically connected with discourse functions here, I will reserve the more thorough analysis of the discourse functions of interactant pronouns for the next section.
As shown in the analytical framework presented in section 4.4.2, the referents of we and
you are divided into generic and restricted. In line with previous research (e.g. Coffin and Mayor, 2004), the findings of this study also reveal that the vast majority of interactant pronouns have a generic reference. As can be seen in Table 4.7, both Iranian and British students employ generic interactant pronouns more frequently than restricted ones.
Table 4.7 Overall instances of semantic references of interactant pronouns we and you (recalculated as instances per 1000 words) in student essays according to language background
Generic references Restricted references
Iranian essays [46,777 words] 1060 (22.6) 130 (2.77) British essays [60,209 words] 288 (4.78) 46 (0.76)
As found with the overall frequency of interactant pronouns in the previous section Iranian students also use we and you with the generic reference considerably more frequently than British students. It can be seen from Table 4.8 that when the Iranian corpus is divided according to language proficiency and test version, the frequency of the semantic references of interactant pronouns in all the sub-groups appears to be broadly consistent with the overall pattern in the combined Iranian data shown in Table 4.7, in that Iranian sub-groups also use generic pronouns more frequently than restricted pronouns.
Table 4.8 Overall instances of semantic references of interactant pronouns we and you (recalculated as instances per 1000 words) in the Iranian sub-corpora according to language proficiency and test version
Generic references Restricted references
High-scoring essays [26,265 words] 607 (23.11) 82 (3.12) Low-scoring essays [20,512 words] 453 (22) 48 (2.34) Academic version [23,475 words] 773 (32.92) 87 (3.70) General version [23,302 words] 287 (12.31) 43 (1.84)
But a closer analysis reveals some interesting discrepancies. The use of generic interactant pronouns across proficiency levels is consistent with the overall Iranian pattern observed in Table 4.7. The use of generic interactant pronouns across test versions, however, differs considerably from the pattern thatemerged in the use of these pronouns by all Iranian students. Academic students use about 33 generic pronouns in every 1000 words which is more frequent than the overall pattern, whereas General students use only about 13 out of 1000 words which is less frequent than the overall pattern. The restricted references of interactant pronouns used by Iranians across proficiency levels are also similar to the overall pattern. Yet, while the use of restricted interactant pronouns exceeds that of the overall pattern, General version students use such pronouns less frequently than the overall pattern. It seems likely then that test version has affected the use of these pronouns. I will return to this issue later in this section.
The comparative frequencies of we and you with generic and restricted reference according to language background are shown in Table 4.9. As can be seen, we with either generic or restricted reference is more frequently used than you in both corpora. This is in line with the overall finding of this chapter that we is used more than you. The interesting, but rather expected finding, however, is the high use of generic we by Iranian students. Similar to Coffin and Mayor‟s (2004) study where IELTS candidates use a high number of instances of we with collective reference (26.6 instances per 1000 words), non-native students in this study also overuse generic we (18.6 instances per 1000 words).
Table 4.9 Semantic references of we and you (recalculated as instances per 1000 words) in student essays according to language background
Generic references We You Restricted references We You Iranian essays [46,777 words] 868 192 (18.55) (4.1) 84 46 (1.79) (0.98) British essays [60,209 words] 229 59 (3.80) (0.97) 29 17 (0.48) (0.28)
It can be seen from Table 4.10 that when Iranian data is divided according to language proficiency and test version, the use of generic we and you as well as restricted we and
you is broadly consistent with the combined Iranian data shown in Table 4.9, meaning that Iranian sub-groups also tend to use generic and restricted we respectively more frequently than generic and restricted you. But while Iranians across proficiency levels use generic and restricted we and you like the overall pattern, Academic students employ generic and restricted we and you more frequently than the Iranian students‟ overall pattern.
Table 4.10 Semantic references of we and you (recalculated as instances per 1000 words) in the Iranian sub-corpora according to language proficiency and test version
Generic references We you Restricted references We you High-scoring essays [26,265 words] 471 136 (17.93) (5.17) 48 34 (1.82) (1.29) Low-scoring essays [20,512 words] 398 55 (19.40) (2.68) 36 12 (1.75) (0.58) Academic version [23,475 words] 657 116 (27.98) (4.94) 57 30 (2.42) (1.27) General version [23,302 words] 209 78 (8.96) (3.34) 27 16 (1.15) (0.68)
One possible explanation for the overuse of generic we by Academic version students may be the Academic topic (Television is dangerous because it destroys family life and any sense of community; instead of visiting people or talking with our family we just watch television.). The inclusion of generic we in the topic may well have cued Academic students towards using this pronoun, with 10% of all the instances of generic we being the exact repetition of part of the topic (i.e. our family or we just watch television).
Fortanet (2004: 54) argues that the frequent presence of generic we “can be attributed to the lack of identity of the speaker whocannot speak for him/herself and must then speak as a representative of a group”. For a similar reason, generic we in this study also seems to have been overused by the Iranian students who express their voice collectively, depicting themselves as a representative of a generalised community of people or human
(4.5)
a. We are human beings and we need to live with each other, we need to
communicate. IR/A/6/46
b. so we should do something to stop making wrong decisions.
IR/A/6/24 c. We should control the kids IR/A/4/26 d. We should not have one law for all people. IR/G/6/13
Although less frequently, British students also use generic we as a way of making themselves the representatives of a larger group of people or human beings in general:
(4.6)
a. We are all now affected by the results of genetic engineering
ICLE-ALEV-0015.8 b. We are using bacteria and viruses to find vaccinations and cures
ICLE-ALEV-0024.8 c. Since the beginning of man on this earth we have always detected, stalked, captured and killed our prey. Fox hunting - FH04
If we replace we in (4.5) and (4.6) above with „people‟ or indefinite pronoun „one‟, the informational contents of the texts will remain unchanged but the writers‟ choice of we
You is also employed quite frequently with generic reference by Iranian students and less frequently by British students. Generic you, as described earlier in section 4.2, can be replaced with generic we or indefinite pronoun one without seriously affecting the ideational aspect of the discourse. The writer, however, can create an interactive relationship by explicitly involving the reader in the text through using generic you
instead of generic we or indefinite pronoun one, since generic you is more dialogic and is directly addressed to the reader. Furthermore, the real reader may identify themselves with generic you more easily than generic we or indefinite pronoun one. You in the following examples has a generic reference:
(4.7)
a. By watching television you‟ll recognize what happened in the world.
IR/A/6/29 b. Television can positive and Negative and it is depend on, How can to
use it in your home. IR/A/4/40 c. When you get older usually there is no motivation for you to test and try
new ways. IR/G/6/3 d. if you forced to do something as obligation you don‟t do that‟s task
well IR/G/4/54 e. If you are going to be stuck in a traffic jam, people prefer to listen to their own Transport 02
In (4.7) all the instances of you can be replaced with indefinite pronoun „one‟ or a lexical item like „people‟ in which case the reader might not explicitly feel involved. The writer, therefore, uses you to create a more dialogic interaction.
In addition to the generic reference, we and you can also have a restricted scope. As shown in the analytical framework in section 4.4.2, restricted we can refer to the writer alone (we for I), writer and reader together, only the reader (we for you), or a specified group of people. The frequencies of restricted we referents in both corpora are shown in Table 4.11. As can be seen, the use of restricted we to refer to the „writer‟ alone or „reader‟ alone is almost exclusive to the Iranian students, with only one instance found in the British data. Iranian students also employ restricted we to refer to „writer and reader‟ or a „specified group of people‟ slightly more frequently than British students.
Table 4.11 Instances of restricted we referents (recalculated as instances per 1000 words) in student essays according to language background
Writer Writer and
reader
Reader Specified group of people
Iranian essays [46,777 words] 34 (0.72) 14 (0.29) 12 (0.25) 24 (0.51) British essays [60,209 words] 0 9 (0.14) 1 19 (0.31)
The most frequent references of restricted we in Iranian essays are „writer‟ and „specified group of people‟ respectively. It can be seen from Table 4.12 that when the frequencies of different references of restricted we in Iranian sub-corpora were examined, a similar pattern emerged showing that Iranian sub-groups also tend to use restricted we mainly to refer to either the „writer‟ or a „specified group of people‟.
Table 4.12 Instances of restricted we referents (recalculated as instances per 1000 words) in the Iranian sub-corpora according to language proficiency and test version
Writer Writer and
reader
Reader Specified group of people
High-scoring essays [26,265 words] 21 (0.79) 9 (0.34) 9 (0.34) 9 (0.34) Low-scoring essays [20,512 words] 13 (0.63) 5 (0.24) 3 15 (0.73) Academic version [23,475 words] 28 (1.19) 8 (0.34) 9 (0.38) 12 (0.51) General version [23,302 words] 6 (0.25) 6 (0.25) 3 12 (0.51)
As noted above, restricted we can refer to the writer (we for I). We with this reference is mostly associated with verbal Processes (e.g. say or talk) as in the following examples:
(4.8)
a. we can talk about the doctors (no surgery) teachers, lawyers, managers IR/G/4/57
b. But since we‟re talking generally I think it‟s best if most people retire
at this age. IR/G/6/34 c. So we can‟t say Television is dangerous IR/A/4/11 d. But, here, we mention some of them IR/A/6/19
We in the examples above refers to the writer alone but the writer seems to involve the reader by using we rather than I although, in fact, it is only the writer who can perform the action of „saying‟, „talking‟ or „mentioning‟. As shown in Table 4.11, British students do not use we referring to the writer at all. The use of verbs such as talk and say is not appropriate in written academic genres but, as we shall see in the next section, Iranian students frequently employ we with such verbs.
Restricted we can also refer to „writer and reader‟. We referring to writer and reader is “characteristically associated with mental Processes” (Coffin and Mayor, 2004: 244) Although this kind of we is used more frequently in the genre of academic writing (e.g. research articles), it is, nonetheless, in evidence in student essays in the present study:
(4.9)
a. In figure 1, we can see the original price and quantity.
ICLE-ALEV-0006.7 b. Now that wehave seen both sides to this argument solutions should be discussed. Fox hunting - FH01
c. if we imagine a human such as a machine. That machine must has some program for it. IR/G/4/41 d. So, we can conclude that the retired people can not work as well as the
others. IR/G/6/11 e. if welook television from this view can understand Television
sometimes improve… IR/A/4/14
We in these examples can refer to both the writer and the reader. By using we, the writer seems to intend to co-opt the 'reader-in-the-text' into the stages of the textual argument (Thompson and Thetela, 1995) and possibly persuade the readers to see the world from his/her perspective.
Occasionally, writer-reader reference of we is realized as the imperative forms of let’s or
let us. Quirk et al. (1985) and Wilson (1990) suggest that let’s is inclusive while let us
can be both inclusive and exclusive. As we shall see in Chapter 6, imperatives are one of the linguistic devices used by writers to involve their readers in the text. The combination of an imperative and an interactant pronoun can, therefore, have a stronger interactive effect. Let’s and let us in the present data are often followed by mental Processes, as in the following examples:
(4.10)
a. Let usconsider how a professional boxer would feel.
Restricted we can also be referred to the „reader‟ (we for you). We with this reference is used mainly by Iranian students and only once by British students. Similar to we referring to writer and reader, we referring to the reader alone is also primarily associated with mental Processes. In the data, this kind of we is often followed by an obligation modal verb such as must, should or have to:
(4.11)
a. we must remember that changes in the demand for computers has certainly not been … ICLE-ALEV-0010.6 b. but there some problem occurred which weshouldbe attention them.
IR/G/4/59 c. The other problems that maybe important and wemust attention to it is
the unuseful and uncorrect information. IR/A/4/5 d. and after all wemust notforget the television like every thing else is a matter of interest. IR/A/6/23 e. so we have to take it into consideration according to advantages and
disadvantages. IR/A/6/5
Arguably, the most likely reading of restricted we in these examples is you. The writer seems to intend to mention that „you must remember…‟, „you must not forget …‟ etc., but s/he mitigates the face-threatening aspect of the proposition by aligning him/herself with the reader through using we rather than you.
Finally, restricted we also refers to a „specified group of people‟, (mainly referring to Iranian or British people), with whom the reader could potentially identify. This semantic reference for we is also identified by Kim‟s (2009) analysis of personal pronouns in
science popularizations in which Koreans use we referring to a certain group of people (i.e. Koreans) more frequently than British writers. Kim explains that cultural differences might be responsible for such a difference in the referential scope of personal pronouns:
These different results related to the pronominal referential scopes seem to reflect the fact that the two cultures may have differently emphasized senses of community. It can be suggested that, with the use of we in this genre, the British writers and readers tend to have a stronger sense of humanistic community as human beings, and to have a weaker sense of national community as British. In contrast, it can be argued that the Koreans, in the use of wuli, seem to have a stronger sense of national community as Koreans, and to have a weaker sense of humanistic community as human beings.
(Kim, 2009:2095)
Kim‟s explanation does not seem to apply to the findings of this study since, as shown in Table 4.11, Iranian and British students use we to refer to their own countries with almost equal frequency.
Based on their contexts, the semantic references of we in the following examples are „specified group of people‟. The writers in these examples use we to refer only to a certain group of people (i.e. British people and Iranian people) with whom the reader could identify.
(4.12)
a. so why do we British hang on to this cruel and heartless exercise.
Fox hunting - FH06 b. Over the past few years, our Monarchy has gone from one scandal to the next. Fox hunting - FH06 c. in our country Iran, Finding job is very very difficult. IR/G/4/59 d. but unfortunately we don‟t have them in Iran. IR/G/6/39
You can also have a non-generic reference when it refers to the immediate reader rather than people in general (i.e. generic you). As noted earlier in this chapter, restricted you is used very rarely in academic writing since it sounds command-like and distancing and writers in general avoid using them. But students in this study use this kind of you. As we can see in Table 4.13, Iranian students tend to use restricted you more frequently than British students.
Table 4.13 Instances of restricted you (recalculated as instances per 1000 words) in student essays according to language background
Restricted you Iranian essays [46,777 words] 46 (0.98) British essays [60,209 words] 17 (0.28)
Students in both corpora seem to employ the restricted you as a way to dialogically address their readers as if the writer and the reader are orally conversing with each other:
(4.13)
a. Whatever you believe, I shall continue to enjoy my roast beef and Yorkshire pudding, ICLE-ALEV-0006.9 b. I agree with your idea if the people in the old ages don‟t have to work for living on... IR/G/4/60
Coffin and Mayor (2004: 244) suggest that in the majority of cases, “the clues to the hypothetical identity of the „you‟ lay in the co-text”. The close analysis of the co-texts where instances of restricted you are used in the present data revealed that restricted you
is mostly used in interrogatives or imperatives. As we shall see in the next two chapters, interrogatives and imperatives are two metadiscourse resources that, like interactant pronouns, can assist the writer to create a dialogic interaction with the reader. Interrogatives and imperatives assume the presence of an addressee, so when you is employed with interrogatives and imperatives, the addressee is explicitly created. The readers can, therefore, easily identify themselves with this created addressee: